Decisions of administrative tribunals

Health authorities - Jurisdiction; Judicial review - Compliance with legislation - Standard of review - Correctness
The Court upheld the decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board which found that the Medical Officer of Health went beyond the scope of his statutory authority under s. 13 of the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act in making Orders prohibiting smoking or the holding of lighted tobacco in small and privately owned businesses in the hospitality industry. Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ontario (Health Services Appeal and Review Board), [2006] O.J. No. 52

Human Rights Commission - Discrimination - Equality rights; Judicial review - Investigations - Procedural requirements and fairness - Evidence - Standard of review - Reasonableness simpliciter An Application for judicial review of a decision of the Human
Human Rights Commission - Discrimination - Equality rights; Judicial review - Investigations - Procedural requirements and fairness - Evidence - Standard of review - Reasonableness simpliciter

Human rights complaints - Discrimination - Disability; Decisions of administrative tribunals - Canadian Transportation Agency - Obstacle to the mobility of a passenger - Discrimination; Judicial review - Jurisdiction of tribunal - Statutory interpretation
VIA Rail succeeded in appealing a finding of the Canadian Transport Agency (the "Agency") that the VIA Rail meal distribution policy constituted an undue obstacle to the mobility of a passenger who used an electric wheelchair ("Sikand"). Via Rail Canada Inc. v. Canada (Canadian Transportation Agency), [2006] F.C.J. No 159

Human Rights Tribunal; Hearings - Compellability of witness; Judicial review - Witnesses - Natural justice - Procedural requirements and fairness - Evidence
An Application to quash an interim Order made by the Respondent Human Rights Tribunal requiring the Applicants to call as witnesses persons whom the Applicants did not wish to call and to produce "will-say" statements from those persons was allowed. The Tribunal's Order was a clear breach of the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness to the Applicants and, potentially, to the witnesses and was therefore set aside. Natural justice and procedural fairness required that the parties be free to conduct their own cases. Universal Workers Union, Labourers' International Union of North America Local 183 v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2006] O.J. No. 50

Human Rights Tribunal - Powers under legislation - Legislative compliance; Human rights complaints - Discrimination; Judicial review - Procedural requirements and fairness - Limitations - Standard of review - Patent unreasonableness
The Court found that a Human Rights Tribunal's decision that additional information submitted by a Complainant, outside a limitation period, did not constitute a new complaint, was not patently unreasonable. Lake City Casinos Ltd. v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), [2006] B.C.J. No. 115

Human Rights Tribunal; Human rights complaints - Discrimination - Gender - Equality rights; Judicial review - Legislative compliance - Disclosure - Relevance of information disclosed - Standard of review - Patent unreasonableness - Correctness
The Court set aside, in part, the Human Rights Tribunal's decision not to dismiss the Complainant's human rights complaint. The Court also set aside the Tribunal's order for disclosure of certain documents. Cariboo Chevrolet Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd. v. Becker, [2006] B.C.J. No. 119

National Parole Board hearings; Prisons; Judicial review - Procedural requirements and fairness - Evidence - Standard of review - Correctness
An Application by T.C. for review of the Parole Board Appeal Division's decision dismissing his appeal from the Parole Board's refusal to grant him accelerated day parole was dismissed. The Court held that the Parole Board and Appeal Division did not breach their duty of fairness by relying on allegations in a Police Report which were denied by T.C. T.C. was afforded full opportunity to respond to the Board's concerns. T.C. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 2163

Physicians and surgeons - Competence - Penalties and Suspensions - Medical Advisory Committee - Rules and by-laws; Judicial review - Natural justice - Bias
The Court prohibited the appointment by both the Applicant Physician and Respondent Authority of certain individuals to an Appeal Committee, on the basis that those appointments would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Fong v. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, [2006] M.J. No. 25

Veterans Review and Appeal Board - Pensions - Eligibility; Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Evidence - Compliance with legislation - Standard of review - Reasonableness simpliciter
A World War II veteran who fell twice from a Bren gun carrier during active service ("Bremner"), succeeded on his application for judicial review of a decision of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (the "Board") which had determined that his degenerative disc disease and lower back pain was not attributable to his war service, and that he was not entitled to a pension in respect of that injury. Bremner v. Canada (Attorney General), [2006] F.C.J. No 122

Judicial review

Decisions of administrative tribunals - Opticians - Disciplinary proceedings - Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming - Penalties and suspensions
An appeal by way of trial de novo from a decision of the Respondent Board of Dispensing Opticians finding the Appellant guilty of unprofessional conduct was dismissed. The Court accepted the customers' evidence that the Appellant became upset and berated them when they were dissatisfied with lenses designed by the Appellant and held that this constituted unprofessional conduct. The Court also found that the Appellant was guilty of unprofessional conduct in attempting to influence the complaints process of the Board by threatening to withhold money owed to one of the customers unless he dropped his complaint. The penalty of a seven-week suspension imposed by the Board was appropriate and was confirmed by the Court. Carr v. Nova Scotia (Board of Dispensing Opticians), [2006] N.S.J. No. 10

Natural resources

Natural gas - Powers under legislation; Decisions of administrative tribunals - Energy and Utilities Board - Sale of assets; Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Statutory interpretation - Legislative compliance - Public interest - Standard of review - Correc
A majority of the Court found that the Defendant Board had exceeded its jurisdiction by requiring the Appellant Public Utility to distribute the net gain from the sale of assets, in part, to its ratepaying customers. ATCO Gas & Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy & Utilities Board), [2006] S.C.J. No. 4

Universities

Students - Assessment of grades; Estoppel and res judicata - Decisions of administrative tribunals - Abuse of process; Judicial review - Appeals
A University of British Columbia ("UBC") student who had been assigned a failing grade for his Bachelor of Education practicum course ("Mohl") was partly successful in appealing from a decision in Chambers that his action against UBC was an abuse of process because it raised claims that had already been decided against Mohl in an earlier judicial review proceeding. Mohl v. University of British Columbia, [2006] B.C.J. No 335

For comments or suggestions, please contact: